The whole 'justice' system needs a complete overhaul tbh.

And none of this new identity crap. People should learn to live with their crimes. If this means they get a few beatings in the street or whatever when they are let out, so be it. Its a consequence of being a sick ****.

To be honest with you, it's really not of any concern to me (or indeed anyone) whether you appreciate my view or not. That's your own subjective viewpoint. It does not negate my right to disagree with you for all of the reasons I have previously submitted.

Agree. 100%.

They made their bed. Let them lie in it. Regardless.

What goes around, comes around. (especially as far as the laughing stock that is the British Justice System is concerned)

Just throw him in a nice, clean cell with three solid meals and a half hour stroll in a concrete yard a day for the rest of his life.

It's more than enough punishment. He will have god knows how many years to slowly rot away in agonising, torturous, sanitised boredom. Don't ever let him out and just reduce him to a number. It's a cheaper death penalty without having blood on our hands. I do not think it's healthy for a nation to legislate murder no matter what the circumstances. I know it's dissapointing for the legion of tabloid gobblers totally unaffected by it who want something to go with their Sky News and grim convorsations because the soaps don't start till' seven.

Why the hell should the hard working tax payers money be used to help feed, cloth and house scum like this?

Damn sure I'm bloody not happy about paying my ever increasing taxes to keep low life this this fed, watered and with a roof over their heads.

Perhaps those who don't actually contribute work for a living or pay taxes via PAYE , who aren't working might be happy with this, but I can tell you right now: I seriously object to my hard earned pounds being used in this manner.

I work, and pay taxes(a lot of them :bored: ) and I would be happy if scum like that got LIFE in prison. Thats real life mind, as in they die there...not life as in the paltry 7 years or whatever they serve at the minute.

Because it would cost less than all the red tape involved in capital punishment. Red tape you can't remove. We are a civilised society and no matter how uncivilised he was this pipe dream of being able to simply cap him off and bury his ass gangland style will not happen.

That leaves us with no other choice. So it's just something that has to happen, isin't it. This visceral 'MY MONEY IS PAYING FOR MONSTERS!' personalisation people make for whatever fraction of a penny they are paying towards a single prisoner is so annoying.

Your tax goes fucking everywhere. It's how society works. It has to happen. You're also paying for burglars, rapists, unemployed sofa shaggers and all manner of vagabonds and layabouts.

Okay you got me. I'm only sticking up for the kiddie beater because I can't find a job.

A truly needless addition to an otherwise fine post. Having to pay for Myra Hindley's soup all those years must have really torn you up.

Wish I could agree with you. I can't.

I object passionately that public money should be spent feeding, clothing and housing such scum. I'd far rather then money went towards schooling, hospitals, care homes and in the thrust of the thread - proper social services care and towards helping victims who have survived such horrors.

I don't believe I have mentioned capital punishment. I have said let him lie in the bed he made upon being freed from jail.

BTW, throwing in a few expletives gives no more weight or credence to your post. It shows that you cannot post without crudity -it's completely uncessary and to make a point, you doing so in the manner you are doing: you are deliberately avoiding the swear filter. ;)

I also did not say my tax money did not fund other areas within society - or that my tax money was soley channelled only towards funding the upkeep of such low life.

As for your personal comment at the very end of your comment, again, quite uncessary and not required.

None of the above.

I don't know enough about this story apart from the odd trashy snippet from the tabloids to judge fairly so I won't. As for the new Identity I can see the pros and cons of it. On one hand it'll protect the public from themselves as some idiots would undoubtedly decide to ***** up their own lives and try to dish out some mob justice but on the other hand it could be seen as protecting him. The idea that he'd be living in luxury is a typical hysterical Daily Mail image that, like the newspaper itself, is rarely based on fact. If he was given any protection then it would be under the condition that he'd have to give in to a lot of restrictions and such and given the high profile nature of his crimes he'd be under constant watch.

Whether he gets a new identity or not should depend on whether he's truly been reformed by the end of his sentence, if he is then I don't see a problem with as it would cost more to keep him locked up for life and that way he could eventually contribute to society. Only criminals that truly want to change should be given that level of help though and whether prison will change him or not remains to be seen.

I'm well aware that using expletives gives no more weight or creedence to my post. I simply like using them. You can choose to report or ignore them but devoting the largest paragraph of your post to them is frivolous at best given how this thread has nothing to do with Jason Owens well documented love of cussing.

I don't know why you constantly use negatives in lieu of having any arguments to pose. I never denied that you know your money goes elsewhere. I didn't point it out to notify you of this fact. I pointed it out to serve as an argument you have not responded to. Similar to how I know you didn't mention capital punishment. You need to start giving others far more credit and just directly respond to their posts instead of giving them some sort of quasi Roger Ebert style critical evaluations that are baseless, rhetorical and fucking useless.

My comment at the end was necessary in that it served as a response to your unnecessary comment. It does have a measurable amount of sarcasm in it but guess what ... deal with it and stop pointing out to others how they post.

It 'seems' that if I had quoted something similar from say a broadsheet, you would hold it in higher regard? Given your comments about the DM, (which was very relative in my opening post) and what appears to be disdain on your part for such a source of information, I'm really at a loss then why you would have entered the thread in the first instance - seeing as you feel the DM's articles are rarely based on fact. :conf: sorry but it does seem a little at odds... you are happy to comment on something you feel to be trashy snippet, not based on any fact?

Not withstanding that : may I ask: do you feel someone with Mr Owen's history: would be a changed person after only 4 years 'rehabilitation'? I'm being very genuine in asking you if you do honestly feel that is possible?

That's basically my thoughts on it.

Putting another child at the possible risk of being subjected to the same horrendous abuse and torture?

"Whether he gets a new identity or not should depend on whether he's truly been reformed": for him to be reformed would necessitate him not posing a threat to children.

and the only way to test if he's reformed or not is to send him back into society and hope that he doesn't abuse or kill another child.

I would hold it in higher regard as broadsheets generally are better written and just more factual then the average tabloid. As for why I entered the thread, I don't see any mention of a tabloid in the topic title so I'm at a loss of what you're actually talking about here and like i said in the post you've quoted I've not commented on the story since I don't know enough about it. I've only talked about the law system and new identities. I'm not quite sure why you are trying to discredit me by trying to put words in my mouth when you've got my post quoted for everyone to see.

I believe prison can potentially change anyone, those four years will drag painfully for someone like him who will undoubtedly suffer at the hands of other inmates. A hellish experience can change your outlook on things. One of the cornerstones of our Law System is that with most sentences we give people the chance to change eventually, whether they receive any help should depend on their willingness to become a better person. If we let go of the hope that people can be better then we might as well lock up everyone who's done wrong for life which wouldn't work either. The system isn't perfect but it's a lot better then most suggestions I tend to here.

how can the parole board, the powers that be, or the public be assured that he is a reformed character? If he is so 'reformed' and there is absolute proof of this: he should not require any new identity.

Do you honestly feel that 'reformed character or not' - that a person who has inflicted such horror and torture upon a young child, should benefit from the taxpayer paying for his new ID, house, job and all other manner of things that that would entail.

Do you truly feel that the strained public purse and it's very restricted finances should be used for such a new ID - rather than say, for example, being used towards treating sick children / or treating children who have suffered emotionally and physically at the hands of such people. ?

If there was a choice between the monies being spent on the New ID or what I have posed above: what would your preference be?

I don't agree with new identities at all. I don't care how reformed someone may claim to be they should be made to live with their actions, especially in this case where a whole life has been taken away before it even properly started. Why should he get his back after a few lousy years? Its a complete joke.

where does this idea come from that he'd be given some sort of luxurious come from? He'd be given a dive to live in and a dead end job that he'd have to keep up due to the agreements he'd make upon getting a new identity. He'd be under severe restrictions and he'd always be watched. He's not gonna get some executive position and a penthouse to live in at the expense of the taxpayer.

So hed be given a **** house, and a **** job...more than some people have who havent committed crimes :/

Well there is evidence that rehabilitation can be successful, and if we ever want to let any prisoners out of jail and have them integrate back into society then the process is essential, we cant keep everyone in jail if it goes against strong evidence of rehabilitation in fear of recidivism.

Pyramid - I'm off out now so I'll try and reply to your post later

You're failing to see the subtleties, he'd have such a restricted life that it'd be like prison but with different scenery. I've read about what goes into these new identities and they aren't a get out of jail free card.

My opening post.....gives links to the source. Aside which, you must have read either that or subsequent posts - because you yourself referred to .... I am not trying to discredit you Dezzy - but to pretend that you didn't realise there was any reference to the DM link - because I didn't quote it in the thread title, seem a bit of a moot point

I can possibly understand your thoughts that Owen would have suffered in prison - but that isn't altogether a certaintly - especially as such prisoners tend to be isolated - for their own safety. I perhaps wish I had the faith that you have, that 4 years would turn this man around. Regrettably, I personally don't have that same belief.

cheers for now.. have a nice night... catch up later at some point. Enjoy! :blush:

Who said anything about some sort of 'luxurious'? Who inferred he was going to be given any executive postion or penthouse. Not one person as far as I can see. If ever I saw an example of trying to throw a curve ball ...this really has to be it.

There are many homeless people who are far more deserving of being given a home. There are many people on the dole who are far more willing to work and simply cannot get a job - who deserve to be immediately placed in employement than scumbags like this man.

Why should low life like this be allowed such things when other more deserved in society, who may have committed no crime at all, far less an henious crime such as this man committed, be overlooked in favour of a child abuser and paedophile?

For fear of recidivism?? You make the abuse, torture and murder of a baby sound so trivial. I'm all for rehabilitating thieves etc but child abusers and murders?? I'm sorry but no innocent child is worth taking that risk imo.

A bit off topic but...you know if someone with a new identity gets married? Would the partner be told who they are?

I say this because I remember when all that jon venables stuff was rife...I remember reading that he had a fiance...Imagine being married to an evil twat like that and not knowing about it D:

I assume they would have to be told...for if they had kids or something, but they probably wouldnt be :/

(I am aware you could marry an unconvicted serial killer or something before anyone says :p)

I am quite positive that it is against all conditions for true id to be revealed - even to marriage partners etc. Doing so, compromises the very nature of the new ID (ie; the more people who know, the more chance of it being revealed) - it is one of the conditions upon which the person receiving the ID is made very aware of.

You asked why I came into this thread if the article was from a tabloid, well I couldn't exactly decipher that from the thread title when I clicked on it and my first post was a response to Livia's rather then the OP. i've not commentated on the actual story directly and the stuff about the Daily Mail was OBVIOUSLY a general example, one I often mention in these discussions.

So if they had kids, would they be took off them and the partner not told why? Or would they just allow the kids to remain with a killer

Fair comment. Seems very odd to enter a thread yet know nothing about what it is discussing, nor taking into account anything that has been said in relation to the very article in question that started the topic off, but opt to select one random post to address without being aware of the discussion on the thread. :conf: But hey, each to their own, live and let live as they say.

I'm not sure Vicky. In such a case as this: I would think there would be conditions (and pretty strict ones) in respect of children - whether the partner's existing ones - or whether starting a family may be allowed? :conf:

Actually...that's a pretty interesting spin off you've put up..... you've got me wondering about that side now.

Comes down to...again...who has more rights. Kids or killers I guess.

Victims don't have rights in the UK. Only the flipping abusers and criminals. :(

Sounds good to me.

Yes, exactly.

Two things. First, I firmly believe, and I think we've discussed this before, that some people are just rotten and without empathy and out of control and will NEVER be rehabilitated to a sufficient level to safely allow them access to potential victims.
Second, even if it were possible to rehabilitate someone who does something like this, they don't deserve it. Back to Stu's suggestion, I think.

You're being pedantic, I knew the story but not the concrete facts and i repled to the post that intrigued me the most.

I'm actually stunned I have to explain this to be honest. It's kinda common sense.

I'm not being pedantic at all - your very own replies are lending themselves to much confusion. I'm unclear why you are 'actually stunned'.

In one post you say you didn't read the article in the daily mail that was provided (because it wasn't clear from the title of the thread), you then make comment about "typical hysterical Daily Mail image that, like the newspaper itself, is rarely based on fact" (despite not reading the article), then you say , "I didn't comment on the story as I didn't know enough about it", and now you say that "You knew the story but not the concrete facts".

No wonder I'm confused!:hugesmile: (note: that's a laugh in general at the confusion, not at you specifically)

In all fairness Dezzy - regardless of which newspapers stories are printed, tabloids or broadsheets - not all of them do offer up the concrete facts - especially in cases such as this - as very few of them are privy to the concrete facts.

Let's both agree to disagree on what you knew about the story or not - Regardless of where the information / article came from. The topic for discussion that was contained in the article was in respect of this particular man, Jason Owen being allowed the possiblity of being given a New ID, given the sickening crimes he committed.

Back to the thrust of the thread. your post below

and my reply....

Do you honestly think a man such as Owen who has such background, such history (men like them at all - ie: Jon Venables) - should have more rights over those who may not have committed any crime, far less anything on the scale of Owen - that they should be afforded the same right to automatic housing, being given a job without question etc? You agree that someone like him, capable of inflicting such horrendous torture on an innocent child, should be given these priviledges all paid for out of the public purse?

[QUOTE=Dezzy;4330195] Hi Pats. Cannot agree more - especially given the latest new Jon Venables - if anyone needs proof that some people are out of control and will never be rehabilitated - even when that rehabilitation starts at a very young and very impressionable age: when they are not meant to be 'set in their way'....... JV is proof of that.

I know we have very differing views on keeping them in prison etc - but as far as protecting the public from such people, I'm 100% in agreeance with you on this one.

He should NOT be entitled to a new identity, what he did to poor Peter was wrong and deserves to be in prison for much longer then that. Our system is so wrong on so many levels.